"On The Lot" tonight

Christopher Doyle didn't start doing anything film related until he was in his late 20's - early 30's.

In the end, it's what you can bring to the screen that matters, not how long ago you hit puberty.
 
i think there's certain ages for a rebirth in everything. look at acting. someone like sean connery was doing action roles in his younger years and, as he got older, moved into more "mentor"ish roles. one should keep that in mind for everything.

a younger director and/or DP would be a great pick for action movies with explosions as a bigger priority than story, while an older director and/or DP would be a good pick for a quiet dramatic movie, with their wisdom, slower pace and most likely greater attention to detail.
 
not always. if you noticed alot of action films as of lately are done by the older directors.
 
Given the tremendous complexity of shooting a large-scale action picture, you'd have to be slightly nuts, to hand it to an inexperienced director, or - much worse - an inexperienced DP.

As far as what 'the media' think - screw 'em, and the donkey they rode in on. If they had a clue, they'd be doing it, rather than just writing about it from a distance.

Very few things less useful, than a critic.
 
Sad Max said:
Given the tremendous complexity of shooting a large-scale action picture, you'd have to be slightly nuts, to hand it to an inexperienced director, or - much worse - an inexperienced DP.
Click to expand...

Sometimes studios take chances. Look at Peter Jackson's body of work before LOTR.
 
I'm not sure I see what you mean. Jackson had completed a half-dozen feature directing projects, before LOTR, plus experience as a writer and producer...

...if you're saying that you don't think his work was any good, okay, but like his shows or not, he *was* experienced as a consequence of having done them.
 
As far as him having experience, yeah he had worked on several projects before LOTR, but none of them was not even close to the scale of those movies. When I was saying that they were taking a chance on him, I remember when it was originally announced that he was basically given free reign to direct those movies, everyone was quite shocked. I don't think he was really known before then.
 
In truth, young, superstar directors are few and far between. I think the path for most directors these days goes film school into their twenties, commercials and music videos until their thirties, then the feature films and tv work.
 
Gotta love Dead-Alive and Bad Taste. The making of Bad Taste shows what a multi-talented filmmaker Peter Jackson is too. He explains how he did all the special effects and props himself, and how he shot himself playing two characters fighting each other in one scene. He also shows off a steadicam he made himself, if I remember correctly. A lot of the DIY filmmakers here remind me of Peter Jackson in that making-of.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
Gotta love Dead-Alive and Bad Taste
Click to expand...
Atta boy, I hate the Lord of the Rings series but love those films. Those are some of the few in his career that actually showcased any style. Also lets not forget the risk-ay Meet the Feebles. It's too bad that whenever I say "I like Peter Jackson" I have to add a "BUT!"
 
yeah his earlier work is what i love most. but frightners i like demons and serial killers and MJF
 
i really dig all peter jacksons early work. Heavenly Creatures, Bad Taste, and Meet the Feebles especially.
 
Well anyone looking for the show to include more behind the scenes footage is sure not going to get it now. Hopefully the couple of talented filmmakers on there won't pay the price for the poor ratings.
 
what were the ratings like? were they that bad?

a girl at work who watches every show (idol, lost, 24, etc) on fox and every other channel told me on the lot is just something she cant get into and she couldnt care less about behind the scenes stuff or up and coming filmmakers. probably how average tv watchers are thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top